Andrew S Park1, Beate Ritz1, Fei Yu2, Myles Cockburn3, Julia E Heck4. 1. Department of Epidemiology, Fielding School of Public Health, University of California, 650 Charles E. Young Dr. S, Box 951772, Los Angeles, CA, 90095-1772, USA. 2. Department of Biostatistics, Fielding School of Public Health, University of California, 650 Charles E. Young Dr. S, Box 951772, Los Angeles, CA, 90095-1772, USA. 3. Department of Preventive Medicine, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, 2001, N. Soto Street, Suite 318-A, Los Angeles, CA, USA. 4. Department of Epidemiology, Fielding School of Public Health, University of California, 650 Charles E. Young Dr. S, Box 951772, Los Angeles, CA, 90095-1772, USA; Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California, Box 951781, Los Angeles, CA, 90095-1781, USA. Electronic address: jeheck@ucla.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A number of epidemiologic studies with a variety of exposure assessment approaches have implicated pesticides as risk factors for childhood cancers. Here we explore the association of pesticide exposure in pregnancy and early childhood with childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) and acute myeloid leukemia (AML) utilizing land use and pesticide use data in a sophisticated GIS tool. METHODS: We identified cancer cases less than 6 years of age from the California Cancer Registry and cancer-free controls from birth certificates. Analyses were restricted to those living in rural areas and born 1998-2011, resulting in 162 cases of childhood leukemia and 9,805 controls. Possible carcinogens were selected from the Environmental Protection Agency's classifications and pesticide use was collected from the California Department of Pesticide Regulation's (CDPR) Pesticide Use Reporting (PUR) system and linked to land-use surveys. Exposures for subjects were assessed using a 4000m buffer around the geocoded residential addresses at birth. Unconditional logistic and hierarchical regression models were used to assess individual pesticide and pesticide class associations. RESULTS: We observed elevated risks for ALL with exposure to any carcinogenic pesticide (adjusted Odds Ratio (aOR): 2.83, 95% CI: 1.67-4.82), diuron (Single-pesticide model, adjusted (OR): 2.38, 95% CI: 1.57-3.60), phosmet (OR: 2.10, 95% CI: 1.46-3.02), kresoxim-methyl (OR: 1.77, 95% CI: 1.14-2.75), and propanil (OR: 2.58, 95% CI: 1.44-4.63). Analyses based on chemical classes showed elevated risks for the group of 2,6-dinitroanilines (OR: 2.50, 95% CI: 1.56-3.99), anilides (OR: 2.16, 95% CI: 1.38-3.36), and ureas (OR: 2.18, 95% CI: 1.42-3.34). CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that in rural areas of California exposure to certain pesticides or pesticide classes during pregnancy due to residential proximity to agricultural applications may increase the risk of childhood ALL and AML. Future studies into the mechanisms of carcinogenicity of these pesticides may be beneficial.
BACKGROUND: A number of epidemiologic studies with a variety of exposure assessment approaches have implicated pesticides as risk factors for childhood cancers. Here we explore the association of pesticide exposure in pregnancy and early childhood with childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) and acute myeloid leukemia (AML) utilizing land use and pesticide use data in a sophisticated GIS tool. METHODS: We identified cancer cases less than 6 years of age from the California Cancer Registry and cancer-free controls from birth certificates. Analyses were restricted to those living in rural areas and born 1998-2011, resulting in 162 cases of childhood leukemia and 9,805 controls. Possible carcinogens were selected from the Environmental Protection Agency's classifications and pesticide use was collected from the California Department of Pesticide Regulation's (CDPR) Pesticide Use Reporting (PUR) system and linked to land-use surveys. Exposures for subjects were assessed using a 4000m buffer around the geocoded residential addresses at birth. Unconditional logistic and hierarchical regression models were used to assess individual pesticide and pesticide class associations. RESULTS: We observed elevated risks for ALL with exposure to any carcinogenic pesticide (adjusted Odds Ratio (aOR): 2.83, 95% CI: 1.67-4.82), diuron (Single-pesticide model, adjusted (OR): 2.38, 95% CI: 1.57-3.60), phosmet (OR: 2.10, 95% CI: 1.46-3.02), kresoxim-methyl (OR: 1.77, 95% CI: 1.14-2.75), and propanil (OR: 2.58, 95% CI: 1.44-4.63). Analyses based on chemical classes showed elevated risks for the group of 2,6-dinitroanilines (OR: 2.50, 95% CI: 1.56-3.99), anilides (OR: 2.16, 95% CI: 1.38-3.36), and ureas (OR: 2.18, 95% CI: 1.42-3.34). CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that in rural areas of California exposure to certain pesticides or pesticide classes during pregnancy due to residential proximity to agricultural applications may increase the risk of childhood ALL and AML. Future studies into the mechanisms of carcinogenicity of these pesticides may be beneficial.
Authors: Philip J Lupo; Elaine Symanski; Wenyaw Chan; Laura E Mitchell; D Kim Waller; Mark A Canfield; Peter H Langlois Journal: Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol Date: 2010-03 Impact factor: 3.980
Authors: Peggy Reynolds; Julie Von Behren; Robert B Gunier; Debbie E Goldberg; Martha Harnly; Andrew Hertz Journal: Epidemiology Date: 2005-01 Impact factor: 4.822
Authors: Lucy E Alderton; Logan G Spector; Cindy K Blair; Michelle Roesler; Andrew F Olshan; Leslie L Robison; Julie A Ross Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2006-06-07 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Catherine Metayer; Joanne S Colt; Patricia A Buffler; Helen D Reed; Steve Selvin; Vonda Crouse; Mary H Ward Journal: J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol Date: 2013-01-16 Impact factor: 5.563
Authors: R A Lowengart; J M Peters; C Cicioni; J Buckley; L Bernstein; S Preston-Martin; E Rappaport Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 1987-07 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Enrique M Ostrea; Dawn M Bielawski; Norberto C Posecion; Melissa Corrion; Esterlita Villanueva-Uy; Rommel C Bernardo; Yan Jin; James J Janisse; Joel W Ager Journal: Environ Res Date: 2008-11-18 Impact factor: 6.498
Authors: Julia E Heck; Jun Wu; Christina Lombardi; Jiaheng Qiu; Travis J Meyers; Michelle Wilhelm; Myles Cockburn; Beate Ritz Journal: Environ Health Perspect Date: 2013-09-10 Impact factor: 9.031
Authors: Judith E Lupatsch; Christian Kreis; Garyfallos Konstantinoudis; Marc Ansari; Claudia E Kuehni; Ben D Spycher Journal: Cancer Causes Control Date: 2021-04-20 Impact factor: 2.506
Authors: Christina Poh; John D McPherson; Joseph Tuscano; Qian Li; Arti Parikh-Patel; Christoph F A Vogel; Myles Cockburn; Theresa Keegan Journal: BMC Med Date: 2022-04-26 Impact factor: 11.150
Authors: Laura Andrea Rodriguez-Villamizar; Feisar Enrique Moreno-Corzo; Ana María Valbuena-Garcia; Claudia Janeth Uribe Pérez; Mary Ruth Brome Bohórquez; Héctor Iván García García; Luis Eduardo Bravo; Rafael Gustavo Ortiz Martínez; Jürg Niederbacher Velásquez; Alvaro R Osornio-Vargas Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-10-29 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Carly Hyland; Patrick T Bradshaw; Robert B Gunier; Ana M Mora; Katherine Kogut; Julianna Deardorff; Sharon K Sagiv; Asa Bradman; Brenda Eskenazi Journal: Environ Epidemiol Date: 2021-05-05